We benighted sons of Liberty have become so thoroughly conditioned to long, leisurely, multiphasic construction projects that we'll probably wait silently for the authorities to repair/replace the I-5 bridge at their convenience. But as a useful mental exercise, ask yourselves: how long , at a minimum, should it take?

In the early days of World War II, the U.S. government and Army realized that a workable road was needed from the U.S. to Alaska, for urgent reasons of military necessity. The terrain to be crossed was some of the most rugged in the world, including raging streams of all sizes, and the highway was just one of many urgent priorities. The highway was approved on February 6, 1942. The Alaska Highway, aka Al-Can Hwy., was built from Dawson Creek, B.C. to Delta Junction, Alaska, a distance of 1,700 miles. (It was later expanded and paved.) The highway was completed on October 28, 1942. Let's see, that's how many days?

Nooksak, I think every environmental law of the world was pushed aside during the Alcan highway construction. Also this was a barely passable road when completed that required constant maintenance and reconstruction from the day it opened. Yes, they got it done but at a huge environmental cost and what you had was a bulldozer path that you weren't driving your Honda Civic over it or even your run of the mill SUV.

That's understood, Kerry. What they needed was a goat path that a military truck could negotiate, but they needed it immediately. My point has to do with speed, what's possible when speed is made a top priority. Construction on the Alaska Hwy. began five days after authorization.

The speed of replacement, as badly as I think that should be first priority for this bridge span, is likely going to be secondary to the "need to do an environmental study to make sure removing the collapsed span won't cause more damage to the river before it is removed from the river, and then of course that replacing the collapsed span with new span doesn't also damage the river". Then of course we need to have an environmental study to make sure the replacement span won't cause any further harm to the river before any work can begin on replacing the collapsed span. Afterall, isn't it more important to have the studies on the damage removing the collapsed span and the potential damage the replacement span will or might cause than to get the bridge fixed and traffic moving (which includes all the commercial traffic and its economic impact on the state) again?

Personally, I think the best course of action is to send the civil engineers out to make sure none of the other spans have been damaged by that overheight truck and once that is done, either fix any damage, or if there was no damage to the other spans, get the collapsed span out of the river and get a replacement span built and in place post haste. But of course I suppose I'm not being environmentally responsible in thinking that replacing the collapsed span with a new one will have minimal environmental impact.

I am a WSDOT employee, I am a technician not an Engineer. That being said I am an inspector during construction projects. I have been involved with a few Emergency projects on the East side of the
mountains. The Emergency projects I have been involved with were done with an urgency to get the work done in a timely fashion involving work around the clock if necessary. Also Safety is a top priority for the public and the workers. So I ask that you give the contractor's and the state workers some room to prove themselves. I know that unless I have walked in another's shoe's I don't have anything but my opinion ...
not necessarily the facts.
Kelly Michelsen

This is the new Oakland bay bridge, 25 years after the 89' earthquake and 5 BILLION dollars it is suppose to open Labor Day, except the bolts in the center column are breaking when under tension. A lot of finger pointing.

Attached Files:

I am a WSDOT employee, I am a technician not an Engineer. That being said I am an inspector during construction projects. I have been involved with a few Emergency projects on the East side of the
mountains. The Emergency projects I have been involved with were done with an urgency to get the work done in a timely fashion involving work around the clock if necessary. Also Safety is a top priority for the public and the workers. So I ask that you give the contractor's and the state workers some room to prove themselves. I know that unless I have walked in another's shoe's I don't have anything but my opinion ...
not necessarily the facts.
Kelly Michelsen

NPR is reporting this morning that the bridge was built in the mid-1950s from a design that's nearly a century old. In an interview, one official suggested a replacement bridge could take 2-3 years to build.

K

Click to expand...

Considering how long it takes 'em to build bridges down in Oregon; I'd say that's a pretty good time assessment.

I believe the disagreement on funding the Columbia bridge connecting Vancouver and Portland is that the Oregon plan is for the bridge to include a light rail line so people on the Washington side can connect with Portland's excellent transit system.

The McCleary decision by the Washington Supreme Court mandates that the state cough up at least $1B to make up for historically underfunding K-12 education. Make no mistake, this is NOT some optional or frivolous expense that can be deferred or ignored.

The state's revenue is based on taxes and fees and thanks to the economy, all income forecasts for the foreseeable future are much more modest than anyone hoped for, making the hurt from the McCleary decision all the more painful. The additional cost for the Oregon version of the Columbia bridge is an expense that's probably not likely to be approved as is.

K

Click to expand...

These are the kind of projects we need to get the economy going. The construction industry is experiencing 16%+ unemployment right now, we don't make much anymore so we better build. If you put $$ in construction workers pockets, they spend it. WAGES drive demand and DEMAND drives the economy. Look @ Eisenhower and the interstate highway system, the biggest public works project since the depression. Pay down the debt from ww2, and opened up commerce all over hell and now we're to cheap to maintain it. A damn shame it is.

These are the kind of projects we need to get the economy going. The construction industry is experiencing 16%+ unemployment right now, we don't make much anymore so we better build. If you put $$ in construction workers pockets, they spend it. WAGES drive demand and DEMAND drives the economy. Look @ Eisenhower and the interstate highway system, the biggest public works project since the depression. Pay down the debt from ww2, and opened up commerce all over hell and now we're to cheap to maintain it. A damn shame it is.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Sadly though, no matter how good an idea replacing America's deteriorating infrastructure might be, since if was proposed by a Democratic administration, it'll never get through a Republican house whose newfound priority is reducing the debt (but only as long as there aren't any funding emergencies in their own districts.)

Even sadder is the reality that if the political balance of power were reversed, the same would also be true.

Sadly though, no matter how good an idea replacing America's deteriorating infrastructure might be, since if was proposed by a Democratic administration, it'll never get through a Republican house whose newfound priority is reducing the debt (but only as long as there aren't any funding emergencies in their own districts.)

Even sadder is the reality that if the political balance of power were reversed, the same would also be true.

K

Click to expand...

You're exactly right, the Democrats labeled themselves as born-again fiscal conservatives championing the days of budget surpluses just a decade ago when you know who was President. But they weren't the least bit bashful in creating new spending burdens for the country when they entirely controlled Congress & WH here a couple years back. But this matter doesn't have to be an either/or one either. Our runway debt problem must be dealt with, the sooner the better, but not all at once either. One side wants to go nearly full bore on it and the other continues along like it's not a problem at all. Funding infrastructure should be a national priority but I'm personally not for pilling on even more debt to fund it. Priorities must be made. What we don't need to do is to target another nearly a trillion dollars of mostly borrowed money for allegedly shovel ready infrastructure jobs and then turn around and spend it elsewhere.

The debt is a strawman that the right uses to keep our attention while the banks & wall street are pickin our pockets. The debt to GDP ratio was much higher comming out of ww2, we didn't cut our way to prosperity then and we won't now.The debt must be addressed, but not by austerity. WE are the job creators, it's our blood, sweat and tears that make this country go, not banksters, wall street or polititians.

Lets not forget that Clinton left the deficit and debt in much better shape than he found it, and it was after W. that we are in this hole. Why? Two longest wars that this country has ever fought. Afghanistan was for 9/11 and going to get bin laden, so I understand, but Iraq was a waste of money, a lot of money. Stories of the CIA running around with bags of cash to hand out, all because we didn't plan for what happens when Saddam falls, well it really pisses me off.

Anyone telling you one party is for fiscal conservatism and another is for free spending is just not paying attention. They both want to spend, Republicans on tax breaks for wealthy and corporations, and for their pet theory on foreign policy. Democrats are for spending on domestic and poor. Of the two, I'd rather see money spent on stuff like infrastructure that can save us time, and lives.

I know we're not supposed to talk politics here, but I'll just point out that it's really good to read some political-economic comments here that are clear-headed and recognize that both parties have warped agendas. There was a time here on WFF when these discussions would go into quite partisan directions, and it bummed me out to see so many people falling for either party's snow jobs and quoting MSNBC and Fox News talking points like scripture.

The hard fact is that both parties and the system they operate in primarily work to get politicians re-elected and large re-election campaign funders' interests entrenched further. Each party devotes enormous energy to defeating the other party, rather than toward solving the big common problems facing this country. This is true at every level of elected politics in nearly every locale. Anyone who professes otherwise is simply ignoring (or ignorant of) reality.